Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 270
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 270.010 (2026)

Domestic animals restrained from running at large

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  270.010.  Domestic animals restrained from running at large. — It shall be unlawful for the owner of any animal or animals of the species of horse, mule, ass, cattle, swine, sheep or goat, in this state, to permit the same to run at large outside the enclosure of the owner of such stock, and if any of the species of domestic animals aforesaid be found running at large, outside the enclosure of the owner, it shall be lawful for any person, and it is hereby made the duty of the sheriff or other officer having police powers, on his own view, or when notified by any other person that any of such stock is so running at large, to restrain the same forthwith, and such person or officer shall, within three days, give notice thereof to the owner, if known, in writing, stating therein the amount of compensation for feeding and keeping such animal or animals and damages claimed, and thereupon the owner shall pay the person, or officer, taking up such animal or animals a reasonable compensation for the taking up, keeping and feeding such animal, or animals, and shall also pay all persons damaged by reason of such animals running at large, the actual damages sustained by him or them; provided, that said owner shall not be responsible for any accident on a public road or highway if he establishes the fact that the said animal or animals were outside the enclosure through no fault or negligence of the owner.  If the owner of such stock be not known, or if notified and fails to make compensation for the taking up, feeding and keeping of animals taken up under the provisions of this chapter, the same shall be deemed strays, and shall be dealt with in the same manner as required by law with respect to such property as strays, under the stray law.  Any failure or refusal on the part of such officer to discharge the duties required of him by this section shall render him liable on his bond to any person damaged by such failure or refusal, which damages may be sued for and recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 14463, A.L. 1945 p. 103)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 12797; 1919 § 4275; 1909 § 772

(1954) Verdict directing instruction in suit for damages arising out of collision of automobile and horse where stock law was in effect, which directed a finding of negligence against defendant, if his horse was found loose and unattended on highway and authorized recovery if collision caused injury, was erroneous. Anderson v. Glasscock (A.), 271 S.W.2d 243.

(1958) Instructions in suit for damages where motor vehicle struck cattle which were illegally on highway approved. King v. Furry (A.), 317 S.W.2d 690.

(1961) Plaintiff was injured when the vehicle which he was driving collided with a hog on the highway. The fact that the hog was on the highway created an inference of negligence on the part of the owner of the animal. Keefer v. Hartzier (A.), 351 S.W.2d 479.

(1965) Motorist made submissible case of negligence of defendant in allowing steer to run loose on road when defendant admitted that gate post in pasture was loose, that bottom of gate was pushed open and it was possible for a calf to squeeze through, and that a steer was "hopping a little bit" the next morning and was butchered. Cox v. Moore (A.), 394 S.W.2d 65.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: Bryan v. Missouri State High. Patrol, 963 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bryan v. Missouri State High. Patrol, 963 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “The court stated that “Lysaught complied with the provisions of § 270.010, RSMo, and did not violate his duty under that statute because he looked for any cattle running at large and tried to determine if any cattle were at large.”
Sill v. Burlington N. R.R., 87 S.W.3d 386 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Section 270.010, the statute mentioned in the counts Appellants brought against the defendants other than Respondent, is an example of a stock law, and pursuant to that statute, “[i]t shall be unlawful for the owner of any animal .”
Beshore v. Gretzinger, 641 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “The petition alleged that the defendant owned the cow and that it was running at large in violation of the Missouri Stock Law, § 270.010, 1 which reads in pertinent part: It shall be unlawful for the owner of any .”
Moschale v. Mock, 591 S.W.2d 415 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 5× “Under Count I, plaintiffs alleged that they owned, in fee simple, the road in question here and that defendants were, allowing their cattle to run upon the road in violation of § 270.010, RSMo 1969. Contrary to defendants’ argument, § 270.”
Jones v. St. Charles Cnty., 181 S.W.3d 197 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “In count one of the petition, plaintiffs alleged liability pursuant to the Missouri Stock Law, section 270.010 RSMo (2000) 1 . In count two, plaintiffs alleged general negligence.”
Scherffius v. Orr, 442 S.W.2d 120 (Mo. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 3× “§ 270.010, RSMo 1959. On this appeal defendant asseverates we should either (1) reverse the judgment outright because plaintiff did not make a submissi-ble case and was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, or (2) award him a new trial because the trial court…”
Anderson v. Glascock, 271 S.W.2d 243 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 3× “The statute is now Section 270.010 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and, so far as pertinent here, reads: “Domestic animals restrained from running at large.”
King v. Furry, 317 S.W.2d 690 (Mo. Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff’s petition was in two counts, the first count alleging violation of the “Stock Law”, section 270.010 RSMo 1949, V.A. M.S.; the second count being based on common-law negligence.”
Beeny v. Shaper, 798 S.W.2d 162 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “§ 270.010 RSMo 1978 et seq. Plaintiff appeals from a jury verdict and judgment in favor of defendants.”
Claas v. Miller, 806 S.W.2d 141 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Appellant made a prima facie case under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 270.010 (1986), by proving the time and place of the accident, ownership of the cow by Miller, and damages sustained by Claas.”
Cox v. Moore, 394 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 2× “The Mis *68 souri Stock Law (RSMo 1959, § 270.010) permits the inference of negligence from the fact the animal was loose on the road.”
Keefer v. Hartzler, 351 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. Ct. App. 1961). · cites it 2× “Section 270.010, V.A.M.S. known as the Missouri Stock Law provides in part: “It shall be unlawful for the owner of any animal or animals of the species of horse, mule, ass, cattle, swine, sheep or goat, in this state to permit the same to run at large outside the enclosure of…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.